Document Content

THE PRIME MINISTER

Decision No. 258/QD-TTg of February 11, 2010, approving the Scheme on renewing, and raising the effectiveness of, judicial assessment

THE PRIME MINISTER

Pursuant to the December 25, 2001 Law on Organization of the Government;

Pursuant to September 29, 2004 Ordinance No. 24/2004/PL-UBTVQH11 on Judicial Assessment;

Pursuant to the Government’s Decree No. 67/2005/ND-CP of May 19, 2005, detailing a number of articles of the Ordinance on Judicial Assessment;

At the proposal of the Minister of Justice,

DECIDES:

Article 1. To approve the Scheme on renewing, and raising the effectiveness of, judicial assessment promulgated together with this Decision.

Article 2. This Decision takes effect on the date of its signing.

Article 3. Ministers, heads of ministerial-level agencies, heads of government-attached agencies and chairpersons of provincial-level People’s Committees shall implement this Decision.

Scheme on renewing, and raising the effectiveness of, judicial assessment

(Promulgated together with the Prime Minister’s Decision No. 258/QD-TTg of February 11, 2010)

I. NECESSITY TO FORMULATE THE SCHEME

1. Political and legal grounds for formulating the Scheme

In the context of stepping up judicial reform and building a socialist Vietnamese State ruled by law, the renewal and improvement of judicial assistance organizations in general and judicial assessment organizations in particular constitute an important issue reiterated in different Party resolutions (Resolution of the VIIth Congress Party Central Committee’s 8th plenum, Resolutions of the VIIIth Congress Party Central Committee’s 3rd and 7th plenums, and Resolution of the Xth Party Congress). Particularly, the Political Bureau’s Resolution No. 49-NQ/TW of June 2, 2005, on the judicial reform strategy through 2020 already stated: “To improve the judicial assessment institution. The State should invest in a number of assessment fields to meet regular requirements of procedural activities. To socialize assessment fields in which regular assessment needs are not great. To strictly and clearly stipulate the order, procedures and time limit for requesting and conducting assessment. To promulgate assessment regulations suitable to each field of assessment. To specify a mechanism for evaluating assessment conclusions to ensure their accuracy and objectivity as a basis for settlement of cases”.

“... To study, provide and develop state services of different types to create conditions for involved parties to proactively collect evidences and protect their lawful rights and interests...”

Under the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s work programs of 2009 (promulgated together with Official Letter No. 66/VPCP-TH of January 20, 2009), the Ministry of Justice is assigned to assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with concerned ministries and branches in, formulating and submitting to the Prime Minister for approval a Scheme on renewing, and raising the effectiveness of, judicial assessment.

2. Present situation of judicial assessment

2.1. Achievements

2.1.1. Institution

The judicial assessment institution has been further improved following the enactment of the Ordinance on Judicial Assessment. The Government issued Decree No. 67/2005/ND-CP on May 19, 2005, guiding a number of articles of this Ordinance. Various documents on entitlements of and policies towards judicial assessors were also promulgated, such as the Prime Minister’s Decision No. 74/2009/QD-TTg of May 7, 2009, on judicial assessment allowances; and the Justice Ministry’s Circular No. 02/2009/TT-BTP of September 17, 2009, on allowances for judicial assessors. Ministries and branches also issued regulations guiding judicial assessment, such as the Public Security Ministry’s Circular No. 09/2006/TT-BCA of August 22, 2006, guiding a number of provisions of Decree No. 67/2005/ND-CP detailing a number of articles of the Ordinance on Judicial Assessment within people’s police forces; the Health Ministry’s Circular No. 04/2007/TT-BYT of February 12, 2007, guiding criteria, conditions, order and procedures for appointment and relief from duty of forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry assessors; and the Construction Ministry’s Circular No. 35/2009/TT-BXD of October 5, 2009, guiding construction-related judicial assessment.

2.1.2. Organization

Central and local judicial assessment organizations in forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal techniques have been consolidated, especially forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry organizations in the health sector, with the formation of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine; the Institute of Forensic Psychiatry Assessment under the Ministry of Health; 33 forensic medicine centers, 16 forensic psychiatry divisions and 11 forensic psychiatry centers at the provincial level. The Criminal Science Institute has increasingly developed, acting as the leading organization in criminal techniques in the country, which reaches regional standards. In 2008, it joined the network of Asian Criminal Science Institutes as co-founder. Criminal technique divisions of provincial-level Public Security Departments have been consolidated. Particularly, the formation of criminal technique assessment sections is taking place in district-level Public Security Divisions. The Criminal Technique Assessment Agency under the Ministry of National Defense has been established.

2.1.3. Contingent of judicial assessors

By September 2009, the Ministry of Justice had issued 2,461 judicial assessor cards, including 844 for forensic medicine assessors, 517 for criminal technique assessors, 152 for forensic psychiatry assessors, 486 for finance-accounting assessors, 179 for cultural assessors, 81 for construction assessors, 33 for natural resources and environment assessors, 43 for transport assessors, 47 for agriculture-forestry assessors, 65 for scientific and technical assessors, and 14 for assessors in other fields.

In addition, ministries, branches and localities have proposed the Ministry of Justice to list and notify 237 persons conducting ad hoc judicial assessment in different fields.

In general, ministries, branches and localities have reviewed and developed the contingent of judicial assessors with increasing quality.

2.1.4. Physical foundations

More attention had been paid to physical foundations and other necessary conditions of forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique assessment organizations. After 5 years’ enforcement of the Ordinance on Judicial Assessment, the National Institute of Forensic Medicine has been furnished with special-use equipment for forensic medicine assessment activities with a total value of VND 36 billion. A number of provincial-level forensic medicine centers have received land for building their own offices and procured assessment equipment and facilities. 50% of forensic medicine centers have their own cars for assessment work. The National Institute of Forensic Psychiatry and a number of provincial-level forensic psychiatry assessment centers have also had their physical foundations strengthened with the support of Central Mental Disease Hospitals I and II and specialized mental disease establishments. Particularly, criminal technique and forensic psychiatry assessment organizations within people’s police forces had received investments in physical foundations and essential equipment worth hundreds of billions Vietnam dong for assessment activities.

2.1.5. Judicial assessment activities

Criminal technique assessment activities nationwide have been further consolidated and put into order, greatly contributing to crime prevention and fighting and response to social requirements. Forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry assessment activities have been step by step stabilized.

According to a Public Security Ministry report, from 2005 through 2008, the Ministry’s investigative police and investigative security agencies and 59 provincial-level Public Security Departments had requested assessment of, and had assessment conducted by organizations and individuals for, a total of 351,639 matters, including 95,229 related to forensic medicine, 3,318 related to forensic psychiatry, 132,070 related to criminal techniques, 13,383 related to narcotics, 13,538 related to finance-accounting, 724 related to cultural matters, 257 related to construction, and 77,277 in other fields.

2.1.6. State management of judicial assessment

As an agency assisting the Government to perform the unified state management of judicial assessment, the Ministry of Justice with its role as the focal-point agency has assumed the prime responsibility for, and coordinated with concerned ministries and branches in, advising the Government, the Prime Minister and the National Assembly Standing Committee in promulgating and step by step improving the system of judicial assessment institutions, urging ministries and branches to promote judicial assessment in each field under their specialized management, guiding and directing localities to raise the effect and effectiveness of state management of judicial assessment, and enhancing professional training for assessors nationwide.

Ministries, branches and localities have paid greater attention to judicial assessment organization and operation under their management. The Ministry of Public Security has timely directed the elaboration and promulgation of regulations, consolidated the organizational apparatus, and made significant investment in physical and technical foundations for the Criminological Institute and criminal technique divisions under provincial-level Public Security Departments. As a result, criminal technique and forensic medicine assessment within the public security sector has been increasingly consolidated and developed. Recently, the Ministry of Health has paid more attention to forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry assessment. Some provincial-level Justice Departments like the Justice Departments of Ho Chi Minh City and Vinh Phuc province have proactively coordinated with other provincial-level specialized departments in advising provincial-level People’s Committees on consolidation of local judicial assessment organizations, allocated funds for their offices, working facilities and human resources and settled their difficulties and problems.

2.2. Limitations and weaknesses

However, judicial assessment work has revealed limitations and weaknesses below:

2.2.1. Institutions

- After nearly 5 years’ enforcement of the Ordinance on Judicial Assessment, its guiding documents have not been fully and timely promulgated, resulting in the fact that many provisions of the Ordinance could not enter into life. Entitlements and policies for judicial assessors were slow to be promulgated and implemented, failing to encourage and attract judicial assessors. Regulations on judicial assessment charges have not been issued due to divergent opinions on the matter as well as conflicts and problems in the current legal system. Ministries and branches have not yet paid due attention to formulating judicial assessment processes and regulations in different fields. As a result, professional processes or regulations on judicial assessment have not yet been promulgated in most fields.

- The policy to socialize judicial assessment under the Ordinance on Judicial Assessment have not been concretized in terms of conditions, comprehensive solutions and appropriate roadmap for implementation. There are no specific regulations on the judicial assessment organization and operation of specialized agencies and organizations and experts in different economic sectors; no legal mechanism for settling disputes between assessment-conducting organizations and individuals and procedure-conducting agencies that have requested assessment; no mechanisms for coordinating assessment activities and managing judicial assessors in assessment fields which have been socialized; no regulations on rates, payment, management and use of judicial assessment charges by assessment-conducting organizations and individuals, especially those that are management agencies; and no mechanism for coordination between competent management agencies and procedure-conducting agencies, and so on.

2.2.2. Organization

The consolidation of judicial assessment organizations, especially those engaged in forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry in the health sector, remains inconsistent in size, organizational structure and name.

At present, 14 out of 63 localities still maintain forensic medicine assessment organizations formed under Decree No. 117/HDBT despite the Ordinance on Judicial Assessment took effect on January 1, 2005; and 19 out of 30 localities have provincial-level mental disease hospitals but do not establish forensic psychiatry assessment centers.

Under the Ordinance, assessment organizations in the fields of culture, construction and finance-accounting have been dissolved and their chief assessors have been relieved from duty. Judicial assessors work only as professionals. However, the lack of assessment coordination mechanisms and specific policies has resulted in the failure to attract professionals to conduct assessment. Many cases have been delayed or prolonged because assessment cannot be sought (in such fields as construction and finance) or no agreement can be reached on assessment results.

2.2.3. Judicial assessors

Due attention has not been paid to building a contingent of judicial assessors that are now insufficient in number and limited in quality. Most forensic psychiatry assessment organizations lack full-time forensic psychiatry assessors. Particularly, the country lacks over 200 criminal technique assessors to meet fulfill assessment tasks. Brain-drain is drastically taking place in judicial assessment organizations without effective remedies.

More than three quarters of working judicial assessors have not received proper training in assessment skills and necessary legal knowledge.

The appointment of judicial assessors and the listing of judicial assessment persons have not yet been based on development planning or requirements of procedural activities, without taking into account outstanding experts in non-state sectors or attaching importance to professional capability. Close coordination with procedure-conducting agencies in the capacity as users or evaluators of judicial assessment conclusions remains absent. The listing of judicial assessment persons for ad hoc cases is not yet coordinated, active and consistent nationwide.

Judicial assessment contents in judicial training and retraining still show limitations and are not regarded as an essential professional measure. As a result, procedure-conducting persons lack fundamental knowledge about judicial assessment as well as necessary skills in requesting assessment and evaluating assessment conclusions.

Training materials used in training and retraining in assessment skills and legal knowledge remain patchy, unsystematic and incomplete.

2.2.4. Physical foundations of judicial assessment organizations

The physical foundations of most judicial assessment organizations fail to meet assessment requirements, especially those of forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry assessment organizations which are even inadequate and obsolete. Compared to other fields, criminal technique assessment organizations have received greater attention but the physical foundations, equipment, consumable supplies and standard specimens of many of these organizations at the provincial level are still insufficient, failing to meet task requirements.

2.2.5. Operation

The effectiveness of judicial assessment remains modest. Specifically, this work fails to meet requirements of procedural activities in the spirit of judicial reform; assessment requests in many cases remained improper, failing to meet requirements of cases; the quality of judicial assessment conclusions in some cases remained poor; assessment was conducted not according to uniform processes and regulations, resulting in contradictory assessment conclusions and complicating procedural activities, especially in injury assessment. The assessment duration is often prolonged, greatly affecting the time for completing procedures. The payment of assessment allowances and other necessary expenses has been slow. Procedure-conducting agencies owed and are owing debts to professional organizations and individuals, forcing the latter to refuse assessment requests. This has caused more difficulties to requesting assessment, even making it come to a standstill. The criminal cases of Dien Bien Phu Victory Monument, intentional violation of state regulations on economic management causing serious consequences, and asset embezzlement in Thi Vai Port Warehouse are typical examples.

Assessment requests in civil and administrative procedures have not been properly responded to. Especially, the receipt and implementation of assessment requests of proceeding participants have not been carried out in a public, official and unified manner nationwide, but depend on the operation of each assessment organization.

Importance has not yet been attached to assessors’ participation in court trials to present and defend their assessment conclusions, which still sees many limitations and does not meet requirements of promoting democracy and argumentation in the context of judicial reform.

2.2.6. Management

State management of judicial assessment was lax or overlapping here and there or now and then, leading to low effectiveness. Many ministries, branches and provincial-level People’s Committees have not paid due attention to their judicial assessment organization and operation. Some of them regarded assessment management as a function of the judicial sector only. So far, no ministry or branch has formulated and promulgated professional assessment regulations and processes or judicial assessment charges in the sector under its management. The consolidation of judicial assessment organizations and the assurance of physical foundations (assessment funds, equipment and facilities and offices) for these organizations as well as the development of a contingent of judicial assessors in ministries and branches fail to meet operation requirements.

The justice sector’s state management of judicial assessment remains problematic. Judicial assessment management is the responsibility of different ministries, branches and localities with the Ministry of Justice acting as the focal point. However, due to many objective and subjective causes, the Ministry’s state management of judicial assessment has not yet been intensive and drastic. The Ministry has not yet come up with any advice or proposals on effective state management mechanisms or measures to ensure effective unified management by the Ministry of Justice and provincial-level Justice Departments and on organizational models and operation mechanisms suitable to practical developments. The inspection and examination of judicial assessment work has been left almost unattended.

Many local justice agencies have not actually promoted their role and responsibility to assist provincial-level People’s Committees in managing judicial assessment work in localities.

2.3. Main causes of weaknesses and limitations

Limitations and weaknesses in judicial assessment work can be attributed to the following main causes:

2.3.1. Limited awareness about judicial assessment

Ministries’ and branches’ awareness about the nature, role and significance of judicial assessment in judicial reform and socio-economic development stability remains very limited. As a result, party committees, branches and authorities at all levels have not paid due attention to judicial assessment organization and operation. This has greatly affected the organization, operation, quality and effectiveness of judicial assessment work.

2.3.2. Problematic and uncoordinated legal system on judicial assessment

Criminal, criminal procedure, civil procedure and judicial assessment laws and regulations are uncoordinated and inconsistent in assuring procedure participants’ rights to request assessment and produce assessment conclusions collected by themselves as evidence for protecting their lawful rights and interests in procedural activities and on responsibilities and obligations of procedure-conducting agencies to consider and evaluate in an objective and fair manner assessment conclusions collected and established by procedure participants against assessment conclusions established by procedure-conducting agencies. Judicial assessment is just regulated by sub-law documents, not a law, so conflicts in regulations on judicial assessment have not been settled reasonably and resolutely.

2.3.3. Ineffective coordination among ministries, branches and localities in judicial assessment management

Coordination among general management agencies (the Ministry of Justice and provincial-level Justice Departments), line management agencies (relevant ministries and specialized provincial-level Departments) and territory-based management agencies (provincial-level People’s Committees) remains lax and coordination among judicial assessment management agencies and procedure-conducting agencies in identifying assessment needs of procedural activities and evaluating assessment quality is very limited.

2.3.4. Failure to assure interests of assessment-conducting organizations and individuals

Assessment-conducting organizations and individuals’ interests have not been assured reasonably in accordance with goods and service principles and rules in a market economy mechanism.

2.3.5. Insufficient funds for requesting and conducting judicial assessment

There are neither separate state budget expenditure items for requesting and conducting assessment in criminal procedures nor financial mechanisms for implementing the policies to support assessment expenses for parties asking for assessment but unable to pay for such assessment.

Stemming from current political and legal grounds for and practices of judicial assessment and judicial assessment requirements in the new situation, especially in the process of judicial reform, it is necessary to formulate a Scheme on renewing, and raising the effectiveness of, judicial assessment, aiming to create a turning point in the development of judicial assessment organization, operation and management with a view to raising the quality and effectiveness of judicial assessment to better serve investigation, prosecution and trial activities in response to increasing requirements of judicial reform and further step up socialization of assessment activities to meet general societal requirements in civil and administrative relations.

II. GUIDING VIEWPOINTS

1. The Scheme’s formulation and implementation must institutionalize Party guidelines on the judicial reform strategy through 2020, ensure assessment activities’ satisfaction of requirements of procedural activities in association with administrative and judicial reforms and the implementation of the Strategy on building and improvement of Vietnam’s legal system through 2015 with orientations towards 2020.

2. The Scheme should address existing limitations and problems in judicial assessment organization, operation and management through improving judicial assessment institutions along with renewing the procedure law; improving the system of judicial assessment organizations to suit the new situation, especially creating marked and breakthrough improvements in judicial assessment activities to properly meet requirements of procedural activities; raising the status of judicial assessment-conducting organizations and individuals, securing a deserving position of judicial assessment in procedural activities and judicial reform and in society; and improving awareness about judicial assessment.

3. The Scheme should be scientific, practical, comprehensive and feasible, perpetuating and making full use of available resources. Measures to renew, and raise the effectiveness of, judicial assessment must have focuses and priorities, avoiding overlap with programs and policies in each field of assessment which have been and are currently implemented by ministries and branches.

III. OBJECTIVES OF THE SCHEME

1. General objectives

To renew judicial assessment organization, operation and management with a view to creating marked and breakthrough improvements in the quality and effectiveness of judicial assessment to meet increasing requirements of procedural activities, contributing to raising the quality of procedural activities, focusing on ensuring accurate, objective and lawful trial and justice and social equality and stepping up socialization of judicial assessment to meet assessment requirements of organizations and individuals not related to procedural activities for national socio-economic stabilization and development.

2. Specific objectives

2.1. Institutions

To improve judicial assessment institutions through renewing them in accordance with international practice and Vietnam’s practical conditions and promulgating the Law on Judicial Assessment and guiding documents, thus creating a sufficient, unified and comprehensive legal ground for judicial assessment organization, operation and management to ensure the relevance and consistence between the judicial assessment law and (criminal, civil and administrative) procedural laws.

2.2. Judicial assessment organizations and contingent of judicial assessors

a/ To improve the system of judicial assessment organizations in the fields of forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal techniques through:

- Developing forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry assessment organizations at the central level into leading centers to reach national standards by 2015 and regional standards by 2020; further consolidating and developing criminal technical assessment organizations at the central level to reach international standards by 2020.

- Building and developing key forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique assessment organizations in different regions (northern mountainous region, southwestern region, Central Vietnam and Central Highlands).

- Consolidating, developing and transforming local forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique assessment organizations in localities within a vertical system.

b/ To establish and develop a network of capable specialized organizations in the fields without judicial assessment organizations, such as culture, finance-accounting, construction, environment, information and communication and intellectual property, through coordinating, mobilizing and attracting these organizations to actively and effectively participate in judicial assessment activities.

c/ To strive for the target that by 2015, forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique assessment organizations will have sufficient full-time assessors suitable to their functions and tasks as well as requirements of procedural activities.

d/ By 2015, judicial assessors and persons conducting ad hoc judicial assessment will be sufficient in quantity and satisfactory in quality (professional qualifications, assessment skills and necessary legal knowledge). By 2015, judicial assessors and persons conducting judicial assessment on the notified list will be retrained in assessment skills and legal knowledge; and to ensure that judicial assessors are outstanding experts in the fields subject to assessment.

2.3. Physical foundations of judicial assessment organizations

To strive for the target that by 2015, judicial assessment organizations at central and regional levels and in big cities will have necessary physical foundations, e.g., working offices, funds, modern assessment equipment and facilities up to regional standards, and step by step ensure physical foundations for local judicial assessment organizations.

2.4. Operation

- To raise the quality and effectiveness of judicial assessment so as to timely and properly respond to requirements of procedural activities, without delaying and affecting the quality of procedural activities.

- To ensure that judicial assessment activities in different fields nationwide conform to professional regulations and uniform processes.

- To ensure the independence of judicial assessment activities.

- To ensure the accuracy and objectivity of judicial assessment conclusions.

- To step up judicial assessment organizations’ assessment activities at the request of organizations and individuals in society.

2.5. Management

To ensure the effect and effectiveness of state management of judicial assessment. To develop appropriate and effective mechanisms for state management of judicial assessment through enhancing the role and responsibilities of agencies assisting the Government in uniformly managing judicial assessment and provide necessary tools for these agencies’ state management work, in combination with promoting to the utmost the role and responsibilities of relevant ministries and branches and enhancing the role of professional associations and organizations in each field of assessment.

IV. TASKS AND SOLUTIONS

1. To improve the legal institution of judicial assessment and create adequate, uniform, comprehensive and feasible legal grounds for judicial assessment organization, operation and management to meet judicial reform requirements

1.1. To review and evaluate current regulations on judicial assessment for amending, supplementing, promulgating or improving legal provisions on judicial assessment. To study and propose amendments and supplements to relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the Ordinance on Settlement of Administrative Cases and relevant documents.

Implementation time: 2010.

1.2. To draft and submit to the National Assembly for promulgation a Law on Judicial Assessment.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

1.3. To study, elaborate and promulgate professional regulations addressing the requirements and characteristics of each field of assessment.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

1.4. To formulate and promulgate a table of injury rates used in forensic medicine assessment.

Implementation time: 2010.

1.5. To formulate and promulgate assessment processes in the fields of forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique, financial, cultural, construction, natural resource and environmental, transport, information and communication and intellectual property assessment addressing the requirements and characteristics of each field of assessment.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

1.6. To formulate and promulgate regulations on judicial assessment charges in different fields according to requirements and characteristics of each field of assessment.

Implementation time: 2010.

1.7. To promulgate a joint circular guiding the Prime Minister’s Decision No. 74/2009/QD-TTg on judicial assessment allowances.

Implementation time: first quarter of 2010.

2. To improve the system of judicial assessment organizations

2.1. To consolidate and develop central forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry assessment organizations into leading centers; to further develop and improve central criminal technique assessment organizations; to develop key forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique assessment organizations in different regions; to consolidate and develop provincial-level forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique assessment organizations.

2.1.1. To make statistics of, review and evaluate forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique assessment organizations’ capacity (size, organizational structure, personnel, funds, assessment equipment and facilities, working offices) and ability to respond to assessment requests.

To hold a national conference to review 5 years’ enforcement of the Ordinance on Judicial Assessment.

Implementation time: 2010.

2.1.2. To organize overseas surveys of judicial assessment organizational and operational models in countries with developed judicial and legal systems such as France and the US, and countries with transitional economies such as the Russian Federation and China.

Implementation time: 2010.

2.1.3. To formulate and implement a Scheme on planning to develop the system of judicial assessment organizations and specialized organizations through 2020.

Implementation time: 2010-2012.

2.1.4. To study a plan on improving the organizational model of central- and provincial-level forensic medicine and forensic psychiatry assessment organizations.

Implementation time: 2010-2012.

2.2. To mobilize and attract capable specialized agencies and organizations in the fields of culture, finance-accounting, construction, environment, science-technology, information-communication and others to participate in judicial assessment, timely responding to assessment requests of procedural activities.

2.2.1. To make statistics of, review and evaluate the capacity of specialized agencies and organizations in the fields of culture, finance-accounting, construction, environment and others engaged in judicial assessment, and their ability to respond to assessment requests.

Implementation time: 2010.

2.2.2. To formulate criteria for evaluating the capacity and conditions of specialized organizations.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

2.2.3. To select, draw up and notify a list of judicial assessment organizations and capable specialized agencies and organizations in each field nationwide for ensuring the timely and quality response to assessment requests of procedural activities.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

2.2.4. To study and formulate a judicial assessment socialization model taking into account the characteristics of each field of assessment and implement it on a pilot basis, then draw experiences for nationwide implementation with appropriate steps.

Implementation time: 2010-2013.

2.2.5. To study and formulate a mechanism on assessment organization and operation of specialized agencies and organizations in the fields of culture, finance-accounting, construction, environment, information-communication and others.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

2.2.6. To study, formulate and implement policies on priorities and material and non-material incentives for specialized agencies and organizations engaged in judicial assessment.

Implementation time: 2010-2013.

3. To build, consolidate and develop the contingent of judicial assessors who are sufficient in number and have proper professional qualifications and legal knowledge necessary for effectively serving procedural activities to meet increasing requirements of judicial reform

3.1. To make statistics of, review and evaluate the contingent of judicial assessment-conducting persons (judicial assessors and persons conducting ad hoc judicial assessment).

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

3.2. To plan the contingent of judicial assessors through 2020 in association with the planning to develop judicial assessment organizations and specialized organizations on the basis of evaluating and forecasting assessment needs of procedural activities in each period.

Implementation time: 2010-2012.

3.3. To study and renew criteria of, and process of appointing and listing, judicial assessors; to renew the method of notifying the lists of in association with honoring judicial assessment organizations, specialized organizations and individual judicial assessors.

Implementation time: 2010.

3.4. To study and formulate a mechanism for attracting outstanding professionals and experts in judicial assessment; to improve preferential treatment policies for individuals engaged in assessment activities in both material incentives (separate salary rank, responsibility-based allowance, work seniority allowance for full-time judicial assessors, judicial assessment allowance for assessors salaried by the state budget; ensuring equivalence between income from judicial assessment and income of assessors not salaried by the state budget) and non-material incentives (honoring outstanding leading assessors in different fields who are engaged in assessment activities).

Implementation time: 2010-2013.

3.5. To train judicial assessors in a number of assessment specialties and update assessment skills and legal knowledge for persons conducting judicial assessment in each period and year; to form and develop assessment skill training and retraining establishments in each field.

Implementation time: 2010-2015.

3.6. To develop official teaching course books and materials on assessment skills and legal knowledge, taking into account the characteristics of each field of assessment, for uniform and wide application to training and retraining assessment skills and legal knowledge for the contingent of judicial assessors.

Implementation time: 2010-2015.

3.7. To promote international cooperation in training and retraining assessment skills in each field.

Implementation time: 2010-2015.

4. To increase and step by step provide forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique assessment organizations with modern physical foundations reaching regional and international standards according to a roadmap in each period, ensuring focal, prioritized and efficient investment.

4.1. To survey and evaluate needs and total funds for physical foundations of judicial assessment organizations in the fields of forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique.

Implementation time: 2010.

4.2. To make investment portfolios and plans, provide assessment equipment, machinery and facilities and other physical conditions (working offices, funds, etc.) for forensic medicine, forensic psychiatry and criminal technique assessment organizations nationwide.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

4.3. To invest in and provide physical foundations for judicial assessment organizations in each period according to order of priority with focal points.

Implementation time: 2010-2015.

4.4. To study, formulate and implement a mechanism for exploiting and using special-use equipment of science and technology institutions and specialized organizations in judicial assessment.

Implementation time: 2010-2012.

5. To renew activities of requesting and conducting assessment and evaluating assessment conclusions.

5.1. To make statistics of and forecast assessment needs of procedural activities for use as a basis for planning and developing judicial assessment organizations and individuals.

5.2. To propose amendments and supplements to regulations on criminal, civil and administrative procedures on the principle of guaranteeing equality of procedure parties in providing assessment conclusions as a kind of evidence; responsibilities of procedure-conducting agencies to evaluate in an objective and equal manner assessment conclusions put forward by procedure parties; to increase judicial assessors’ participation in court hearings in cases requiring assessment and cases in which assessment conclusions serve as the sole or key ground for settling cases.

Implementation time: 2010-2015.

5.3. To study, formulate and implement a mechanism for requesting assessment on the principle of attaching importance to the capacity of specialized organizations and professionals when selecting and requesting assessment.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

5.4. To formulate and implement a mechanism for providing professional services by judicial assessment organizations and specialized organizations ensuring equality for procedure parties (procedure-conducting agencies and participants in criminal procedures, involved parties in civil and administrative procedures), to meet the needs of organizations and individuals in society for assessment related to civil and economic transactions.

Implementation time: 2010-2015.

5.5. To conduct judicial assessment according to uniform professional processes and regulations nationwide.

Implementation time: 2010-2012.

5.6. To study, formulate and implement a mechanism for evaluating and using judicial assessment conclusions of procedure-conducting agencies.

Implementation time: 2010-2012.

5.7. To formulate and implement a mechanism for allocating funds for procedure-conducting agencies to pay expenses for requesting and conducting assessment.

Implementation time: 2010.

5.8. To develop statistical criteria and make statistics of and evaluate the volume and quality of judicial assessment in investigation, prosecution and trial activities.

Implementation time: 2010.

6. To raise awareness of concerned branches, authorities, organizations and individuals and the entire society about the position, role and contents of judicial assessment

6.1. To improve awareness of branches and authorities about the nature, role and significance of judicial assessment in procedural activities and judicial reform and in socio-economic stability and development; to raise the responsibility of branches and authorities, especially managing ministries and branches, provincial-level People’s Committees and party committees at all levels, to manage judicial assessment.

Implementation time: 2010-2015.

6.2. To intensify the dissemination of laws and regulations on judicial assessment among procedure-conducting persons.

Implementation time: 2010-2015.

6.3. To renew professional training and retraining contents and programs for judicial titles through increasing the contents and time of judicial assessment training.

Implementation time: 2010-2012.

6.4. To study and establish a judicial assessment website under the management of ministries and branches assigned to perform the unified management of judicial assessment for establishing a separate portal on judicial assessment and a forum for exchanging opinions on judicial assessment organization, operation and management.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

7. To raise the effectiveness and effect of state management of judicial assessment and law enforcement

7.1. To study and formulate a mechanism for renewing the state management of judicial assessment through increasing the role and responsibilities of agencies assisting the Government in uniformly managing judicial assessment to ensure adequate state management tools of these agencies, putting an end to formalistic management; to promote to the utmost the role and responsibilities of managing ministries and branches and procedure-conducting agencies; to enhance the role of professional associations and organizations in each field of assessment.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

7.2. To elaborate and promulgate a Regulation on coordination between the justice sector and professional sectors in managing judicial assessment with the Ministry of Justice and provincial-level Justice Departments acting as responsible agencies coordinating with concerned ministries and branches; a Regulation on coordination between judicial assessment management agencies and procedure-conducting agencies; and a Regulation on organization and operation of the Steering Committee for the Scheme’s implementation.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

7.3. To formulate programs and plans to regularly or irregularly examine and inspect judicial assessment organization and operation.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

7.4. To formulate a mechanism on responsibilities of ministers and heads of branches and localities to renew, and raise the effectiveness of, judicial assessment in the fields under the management of ministries, branches and localities.

Implementation time: 2010-2011.

V. ORGANIZATION OF IMPLEMENTATION

1. To set up Steering Committees for implementation of the Scheme on renewing judicial assessment organization, operation and management:

- The Central Steering Committee:

A Deputy Prime Minister shall act as the head; the Minister of Justice shall act as the standing deputy head; the Ministry of Justice shall act as the assisting and advising agency of the Steering Committee.

The Steering Committee’s key members include leaders of the Ministries of Health; Public Security; National Defense; Finance; Home Affairs; Planning and Investment; Construction; Culture, Sports and Tourism; Science and Technology; and Information and Communications, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuracy, and the Central Steering Committee for Judicial Reform.

Depending on the task requirements in each period, the Steering Committee’s head shall, at the proposal of the Minister of Justice, consider and decide to adjust the composition and membership of the Steering Committee for the Scheme’s implementation.

- Local Steering Committees:

Based on requirements of and specific conditions in each locality, the head of the provincial-level Justice Department shall advise and submit to the provincial-level People’s Committee chairperson for consideration and decision the formation of a Steering Committee for implementation of the Scheme on renewing, and raising the effectiveness of, judicial assessment in that locality.

2. Assignment of responsibilities

2.1. The Ministry of Justice shall:

2.1.1. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with concerned departments and branches in, advising the Prime Minister on the formation of the Central Steering Committee for Judicial Assessment Renewal and guide and direct the formation of provincial-level Steering Committees; formulate operation plans, contents and programs of the Central Steering Committee and guide the organization and operation of provincial-level Steering Committees.

2.1.2. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with ministries and branches in, organizing the Scheme’s implementation; formulate specific programs and plans for the Scheme’s implementation in each period and submit them to the Prime Minister for approval; direct, guide, urge, examine and evaluate the Scheme’s implementation results.

2.1.3. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with ministries and branches in, implementing solutions specified at Points 1.1, 1.2, 1.7. 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1, 6.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4, Part IV of this Scheme.

2.1.4. Formulate and submit in the first quarter of 2010 to a competent agency for approval Projects 1, 2 and 6 on the List of projects attached to this Scheme (not printed herein).

2.2. The Ministry of Health shall:

2.2.1. Coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in, the Scheme’s implementation.

2.2.2. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in, implementing solutions related to the fields under their management as specified at Points 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.6, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.5, Part IV of this Scheme.

2.2.3. Formulate and submit in the first quarter of 2010 to a competent agency for approval Project 3 on the List of projects attached to this Scheme (not printed herein).

2.3. The Ministry of Public Security shall:

2.3.1. Coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in the Scheme’s implementation.

2.3.2. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in, implementing solutions related to the fields under their management as specified at Points 1.3, 1.5, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.6, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.5, Part IV of this Scheme.

2.3.3. Formulate and submit in the first quarter of 2010 to a competent agency for approval Project 4 on the List of projects attached to this Scheme (not printed herein).

2.4. The Ministry of National Defense shall:

2.4.1. Coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in the Scheme’s implementation.

2.4.2. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in, implementing solutions related to the fields under their management as specified at Points 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.6, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.5, Part IV of this Scheme.

2.4.3. Formulate and submit in the first quarter of 2010 to a competent agency for approval Project 5 on the List of projects attached to this Scheme (not printed herein).

2.5. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, the Ministry of Construction, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Information and Communications and other managing ministries and branches shall:

2.5.1. Coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in the Scheme’s implementation and organize the Scheme’s implementation within the scope of their management.

2.5.2. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in, implementing solutions related to the fields under their management as specified at Points 1.3, 1.5, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.6, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.4, 5.5 and 5.6, Part IV of this Scheme (not printed herein).

2.6. The Ministry of Finance shall:

2.6.1. Provide annual state budget allocations for the Scheme’s implementation in accordance with the State Budget Law; coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in the Scheme’s implementation.

2.6.2. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in, implementing solutions related to the fields under their management as specified at Points 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.6, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.4, 5.5 and 5.6, Part IV of this Scheme.

2.7. The Ministry of Planning and Investment shall:

2.7.1. Coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in the Scheme’s implementation.

2.7.2. Coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in formulating judicial assessment investment projects under this Scheme and appraising these projects under regulations.

2.7.3. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in, implementing solutions related to the fields under their management as specified at Points 1.3, 1.5, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.6, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.4 and 5.5, Part IV of this Scheme.

2.8. The Ministry of Home Affairs shall:

2.8.1. Coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in the Scheme’s implementation.

2.8.2. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with ministries and branches in, ensuring human resources and implementing personnel policies for judicial assessment under this Scheme.

2.9. Provincial-level People’s Committees shall:

2.9.1. Plan, direct and organize the Scheme’s implementation in localities and annually report the Scheme’s implementation results to the Ministry of Justice for summarization and reporting to the Prime Minister.

2.9.2. Direct provincial-level Justice Departments and specialized Departments in consolidating, and raising the capacity and effectiveness of, judicial assessment organizations and raising the capacity of the contingent of judicial assessors in localities; review and list capable specialized agencies and organizations and outstanding experts in different trades and fields that are engaged in judicial assessment in localities for proposing competent agencies to notify these lists; formulate plans to train and retrain the contingent of judicial assessors in accordance with local requirements and organize their implementation.

2.9.3. Arrange state payrolls necessary for local judicial assessment organizations.

2.9.4. Arrange working offices, funds and other physical foundations necessary for judicial assessment organizations in localities.

2.9.5. Implement policies to encourage and attract capable specialized agencies and organizations and outstanding experts in different trades and fields to engage in local judicial assessment activities.

2.10. The Central Steering Committee for Judicial Reform shall:

2.10.1. Direct the combination of judicial reform programs and plans with the Scheme’s implementation within the framework of the judicial reform strategy through 2020; direct ministries, branches and localities to increase physical foundations and other conditions necessary for raising the operation capacity and effectiveness of judicial assessment organizations in implementing judicial reform solutions.

2.10.2. Join the Steering Committee for the Scheme’s implementation and coordinate with concerned agencies in directing the Scheme’s implementation.

2.10.3. Direct functional agencies to amend and supplement judicial assessment regulations in amending and supplementing the Criminal Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code and the Ordinance on Procedures for Settlement of Administrative Cases toward empowering procedure participants to request judicial assessment organizations, specialized agencies and organizations and experts to protect their lawful rights and interests in proceedings.

2.11. The Supreme People’s Procuracy and Supreme People’s Court shall:

2.11.1. Coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in the Scheme’s implementation.

2.11.2. Assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and concerned ministries and branches in, implementing solutions related to their activities as specified at Points 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.8, 6.2 and 6.3, Part IV of this Scheme; and in making statistics of and evaluating procedural activities’ assessment needs as a basis for building and zand judicial assessors; annually or irregularly monitoring, making statistics of and evaluating judicial assessment in procedural activities.

3. Funds for the Scheme’s implementation

3.1. Funds for the Scheme’s implementation will come from the state budget and financial donations (if any).

3.2. The central budget shall allocate funds for implementing tasks and solutions assigned to ministries and central branches and agencies and for providing special-use assessment equipment and facilities for local judicial assessment organizations.

Annually, ministries and central branches and agencies shall make fund estimates for implementing assigned tasks and solutions according to the schedule specified in this Scheme and send them to competent agencies for appraisal and assignment under regulations.

Funds for implementing tasks and solutions specified at Points 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1, 6.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4, Part IV of this Scheme are estimated at VND 16,230,000,000 (sixteen billion, two hundred and thirty million), which shall be allocated according to the annual schedule of tasks (in the attached Appendix, not printed herein).

Funds for implementing other tasks and solutions under the Scheme shall be allocated under annual estimates in accordance with the State Budget Law.

3.3. Local budgets shall allocate their annual regular funds for implementing tasks and solutions of provincial-level People’s Committees under Section 2.9, Part V of this Scheme.

3.4. Contributions of domestic and foreign individuals and organizations will be mobilized for the Scheme’s implementation.

4. Examination and review

Annually, the Ministry of Justice shall assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with ministries, branches and localities in, reviewing the tasks performed and draw experience lessons for further implementing solutions to attain the objectives set in the Scheme.